Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Re: [C-L] Committee in Trouble

[Tree Bressen (tree]

Hi,

Grant wrote:
>So, one question is how to reach compromise when one "need" is framed in a 
>way that categorically prevents another need from being met?  In my view, a 
>compromise between  "totally open" and "totally screened" is something 
>along the lines of  "some level of screening"........  In my view, not 
>budging from a position that begins with "totally" creates an impossible 
>situation.

I think a key is in your first line above.  You wrote "need," but in
quotes.  When things seem stuck it's often useful to distinguish between
"needs" and "positions," and then focus on the needs.  Marshall Rosenberg's
Nonviolent Communication system does this too, and i'm delighted to see it
spreading in cohousing communities.  

In this context, Need refers to a basic underlying thing that is
life-affirming.  For example, we have physical needs for food, protection
from harsh weather, etc.  And we have other needs that are less concrete
but no less real: love, affection, compassion, trust, autonomy, meaning,
connection, etc.

When you move the analysis to the need level, much of the conflict
disappears.  A statement that there must be no visual blockage of the play
area is a position, not a need.  So the next step would be finding out what
needs are underlying that position.  For example, maybe the person holding
that view has a need for safety of their children.  While another member
might have a need to maintain focus while working in their yard, which for
them leads to a position of wanting visual screening.  (Perhaps a third
member even has the exact same need for safety of their children, but
believes that need will best be served by having a wall to contain the kids
away from danger, rather than by maintaining open sight lines.)

Anyway, the point is, keeping the focus on the needs opens up the
discussion.  Your group can list out what needs the play area edge is
supposed to fulfill, which can then become criteria for evaluating possible
solutions or alternatives.  

Note that the focus is not on telling someone else that they shouldn't be
saying what they are saying, or on telling someone else that what they are
saying is a position and not a need.  Rather, the emphasis is on supporting
exploration by further asking questions.  

When we understand where someone else's responses are coming from we often
naturally feel more compassionate toward them, and as we express that
compassion, their position often softens.  Not that you can force that to
happen, but the tendency is there.

>So my question is,  when a state of  stuckness occurs,  would it be more 
>useful to FIRST go to the whole community for input on the content of the 
>issue (e.g., do you want a wall, what type of wall, etc?), or would it be 
>more useful to FIRST go to the whole community for help with overall 
>process issues?  Or is there something in between/else you may have to 
>suggest?  I would like to hear insights that may be useful in revising our 
>process manual.

I'm not convinced that there is a set answer to this question.  In general
i'm in favor of having a clear process for making a decision before trying
to move forward on content.  However, i think it depends on the situation.  

Let's say a particular issue makes you realize your process is not clear in
a way that affects more than just that issue.  That's helpful information,
and your group needs to follow up on doing the work of figuring out a
better set of steps or whatever.  But figuring out the larger process might
take months, and in the meantime, the meals still need to get cooked,
maintenance still needs to get done, etc.  So you might need to agree to a
temporary process in order to meet the immediate needs, and to frustrate
people so much that they get burnt out.  Of course, unless you do the
follow-up on the larger process issue, trust will erode, and next time you
ask for agreement on a temporary thing you might not get it.

Peace,

--Tree



-----------------------------------------------

Tree Bressen
1680 Walnut St.
Eugene, OR 97403
(541) 484-1156
tree [at] ic.org
http://www.efn.org/~bressen
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l